4 ms·

That sounds like a pretty standard HR situation. Can't do that shit at work. But your personal life should be different (no matter how inconvenient that is in s

That sounds like a pretty standard HR situation. Can't do that shit at work. But your personal life should be different (no matter how inconvenient that is in some cases), and the social justice movement is looking to change that. They're causing people to lose their jobs over something that they did in their personal life; on their own time, separate from work. That's fundamentally different and it isn't justice. It isn't freedom. It's oppression.

_delirium 11y ago
I'm not sure it's that they're looking to change it, vs. take advantage of something for their own political ends that already exists (and has for a long time). The traditional "rule" in the US is that you can do whatever you want on your own time, unless it's something that your employer finds out about, and finds sufficiently offensive, embarrassing, or inconvenient. Then, since employment is at-will, they can fire you for it, as long as it isn't from a specific list of things that would constitute unlawful termination. The main change, as I see it, is that using it as an organized tactic (compiling lists, contacting employers, etc.) has mainly been done by conservatives in the past, directed at communists, the LGBT movement, flag-burners, etc. Those more on the left using it (or at least, using it with any success) is a somewhat newer development in the US. To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult.
- SFLemonade 11y ago
  Great points, thank you for bringing them to my attention. I also think that another difference is the scale, prevalence, and accessibility of this practice now. Whereas isolated groups of radicals may have been compiling lists in the past, now we have entire populations shaming people on Twitter. And that shouldn't come as a surprise; it requires virtually no effort and it's very public. "To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult." I couldn't agree more. But I would also argue that this will require a cultural shift. A re-evaluation of the merit of mob-driven "social justice" and the ways in which we build true social progress. Employers don't fire these people because they actually care that they're "bigots". They fire them because they're PR nightmares. They fire them because they're receiving tons of public social pressure and that's bad for business. So the true mechanism is the social pressure itself. In addition to updating laws to deal with the times, we need to curb this behavior and make it unacceptable at a social / cultural level.

_delirium 11y ago

I'm not sure it's that they're looking to change it, vs. take advantage of something for their own political ends that already exists (and has for a long time). The traditional "rule" in the US is that you can do whatever you want on your own time, unless it's something that your employer finds out about, and finds sufficiently offensive, embarrassing, or inconvenient. Then, since employment is at-will, they can fire you for it, as long as it isn't from a specific list of things that would constitute unlawful termination. The main change, as I see it, is that using it as an organized tactic (compiling lists, contacting employers, etc.) has mainly been done by conservatives in the past, directed at communists, the LGBT movement, flag-burners, etc. Those more on the left using it (or at least, using it with any success) is a somewhat newer development in the US. To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult.

SFLemonade 11y ago
Great points, thank you for bringing them to my attention. I also think that another difference is the scale, prevalence, and accessibility of this practice now. Whereas isolated groups of radicals may have been compiling lists in the past, now we have entire populations shaming people on Twitter. And that shouldn't come as a surprise; it requires virtually no effort and it's very public. "To me the fundamental place to tackle this would be at the mechanism: the problem is that employers can and do fire people who have opinions they either dislike or find embarrassing. That will continue to be true, unless labor laws are changed to make it more difficult." I couldn't agree more. But I would also argue that this will require a cultural shift. A re-evaluation of the merit of mob-driven "social justice" and the ways in which we build true social progress. Employers don't fire these people because they actually care that they're "bigots". They fire them because they're PR nightmares. They fire them because they're receiving tons of public social pressure and that's bad for business. So the true mechanism is the social pressure itself. In addition to updating laws to deal with the times, we need to curb this behavior and make it unacceptable at a social / cultural level.